Dwelling unit circuits

Status
Not open for further replies.
bealfi said:
That's a good point on NEC 220.60, I think that non coincident is being miss-applied.
Click to expand...

Well I do not see a distinction in the NEC.

If only one of two loads can run at one time you only have to worry about the heaviest of them.

Do not misunderstand me, I think this is a pretty poor design but I do not see a safety issue or a glaring NEC violation.
 
iwire said:
Well I do not see a distinction in the NEC.

If only one of two loads can run at one time you only have to worry about the heaviest of them.
...
Click to expand...

You don't see a distintion between Part II and Part III of Article 220?

Part II is for branch-circuit calculations.
Part III is for Feeder and Service Load Calculations
Noncoincident Loads is Section 220.60, and the section ends "for calculating the total load of a feeder or service".

In practice you are right, of course. The load will only be the largest of the two, but that isn't how the branch-circuit is calculated, unless another section allows it.
 
iwire said:
I do not see anything in the NEC that requires me to calculate a circuit based on what is not connected to it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, maybe not. But very often a room full of lights is not connected to its circuit, yet I bet we add the load.

I will allow though that the SPDT or DPDT is different situation.
 
Volta said:
Hmm, maybe not. But very often a room full of lights is not connected to its circuit, yet I bet we add the load.

I will allow though that the SPDT or DPDT is different situation.
Click to expand...

Those were my thoughts as well, any switch disconnects the equipment from the circuit but there seems to me to be a difference with a selector type switch.

As much as I agree the situation the OP describes is not what the NEC intends I do not see a safety issue.
 
iwire said:
Those were my thoughts as well, any switch disconnects the equipment from the circuit but there seems to me to be a difference with a selector type switch.

As much as I agree the situation the OP describes is not what the NEC intends I do not see a safety issue.
Click to expand...

Well, besides the food safety issue, I'm sure. ;):cool:
 
I believe they're trying to designate the refrigerator as one of the kitchen circuits, and the microwave as the other. In this case, they're switching between the two with one home run.
 
bealfi said:
I believe they're trying to designate the refrigerator as one of the kitchen circuits, and the microwave as the other. In this case, they're switching between the two with one home run.
Click to expand...
bealfi said:
Guess they figure that NEC 210.11 is satisfied with the switching.
Click to expand...
There need to be two or more 20 amp branch-circuits. Can't get around that requirement. If only one 'home run', it can be a 12/3 (multi-wire) circuit, fed from two handle-tied breaker poles. Or it can be two 12/2 circuits, fed from two breaker poles. But it can't be a single circuit to feed the common of a double-throw switch.

Switching one circuit between two loads is separate concern. I doubt the health department would be fond of a part-time foor refrigeration system.

Will the microwave be fastened in-place?
 
I guess if you can't find a code prohibiting this, the least you could do is to make sure the selector switch has a horsepower rating that meets the code requirements in 440 part II.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top